OBJECTIVE: To compare tuberculin screening of all kindergartners and high school entrants (screen-all strategy) vs screening limited to high-risk children (targeted screening). DESIGN: Decision, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit analyses. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Students in a large urban and rural county. DEFINITIONS: High risk of tuberculosis infection was defined as birth in a county with a high prevalence of tuberculosis. Low risk was defined as birth in the United States. OUTCOME MEASURES: Tuberculosis cases prevented for 10, 000 children screened. Net costs, net cost per case prevented, benefit-cost ratio, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The screen-all strategy would prevent 14.9 cases per 10,000 children screened; targeted screening would prevent 84.9 cases per 10,000 children screened. The screen-all strategy is more costly than no screening; the benefit-cost ratio is 0.58. Targeted screening would result in a net savings; the benefit-cost ratio is 1.2. Screening all children is cost saving only if the reactor rate is 20% or greater. The cost per additional case prevented for screening all children compared with targeted screening (+34 666) is more than twice as high as treatment and contact tracing for a case of tuberculosis (+16 392). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted screening of schoolchildren is much less costly than mass screening and is more efficient in prevention of tuberculosis.
OBJECTIVE: To compare tuberculin screening of all kindergartners and high school entrants (screen-all strategy) vs screening limited to high-risk children (targeted screening). DESIGN: Decision, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit analyses. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Students in a large urban and rural county. DEFINITIONS: High risk of tuberculosis infection was defined as birth in a county with a high prevalence of tuberculosis. Low risk was defined as birth in the United States. OUTCOME MEASURES: Tuberculosis cases prevented for 10, 000 children screened. Net costs, net cost per case prevented, benefit-cost ratio, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The screen-all strategy would prevent 14.9 cases per 10,000 children screened; targeted screening would prevent 84.9 cases per 10,000 children screened. The screen-all strategy is more costly than no screening; the benefit-cost ratio is 0.58. Targeted screening would result in a net savings; the benefit-cost ratio is 1.2. Screening all children is cost saving only if the reactor rate is 20% or greater. The cost per additional case prevented for screening all children compared with targeted screening (+34 666) is more than twice as high as treatment and contact tracing for a case of tuberculosis (+16 392). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted screening of schoolchildren is much less costly than mass screening and is more efficient in prevention of tuberculosis.
Authors: Mark L Wieland; Jennifer A Weis; Marilynn W Olney; Marty Alemán; Susan Sullivan; Kendra Millington; Connie O'Hara; Julie A Nigon; Irene G Sia Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: J R Villalbí; H Galdós-Tangüís; J A Caylà; P Casañas; A Ferrer; M Nebot Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Mark L Wieland; Jonathan Nelson; Tiffany Palmer; Connie O'Hara; Jennifer A Weis; Julie A Nigon; Irene G Sia Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2012-12-13
Authors: Mark L Wieland; Jennifer A Weis; Barbara P Yawn; Susan M Sullivan; Kendra L Millington; Christina M Smith; Susan Bertram; Julie A Nigon; Irene G Sia Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2012-02
Authors: Benjamin L Laskin; Jens Goebel; Jeffrey R Starke; Daniel P Schauer; Mark H Eckman Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Paul Brassard; Travis Salway Hottes; Richard G Lalonde; Marina B Klein Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.471